Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nalxhal

I object. This userpage was not covered by a CSD criteria, and its deletion contravenes the clear language of WP:CSD: The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below. Snow deletion of the article does now enable G4 of a userpage (it was not the same page, not the same space). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:IAR. The action undoubtedly benefited the encyclopedia. Any objection is pure policy w a onkery at its worst. → ROUX   ₪  22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Please see WP:CSD and WT:CSD, and Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride:

Final decision

Deletion

3) The policy pages for Deletion policy, Undeletion policy, and Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion of pages, including pages in userspace. Administrators are expected to use their deletion and undeletion abilities consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete pages that lie outside the criteria for speedy deletion should usually list those pages at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, such as Articles for deletion or Miscellany for deletion, or apply a Proposed deletion tag. This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria, nor constrain application of our policy on biographies of living persons.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC
 * IAR is not to be easily used to extend CSD beyond it's very clear limited applicability, certainly not for a case where there is absolutely no urgency (the page had been sitting there for years).
 * I also not that the close referenced "speedy" and did not reference IAR, so Roux is not defedning the close, but given a second attempt. The deletion was a bad CSD deletion, and would have been a bad IAR deletion, if that is what it was.  Instead, the deletion and close is an attempt to stifle debate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am, actually, defending both the close and the deletion. And I am reverting your removal of it. Nowhere in IAR does it say "except for when SmokeyJoe disagrees" or "except when ArbCom has said 'Administrators who wish to delete pages that lie outside the criteria for speedy deletion should usually list those pages'" (emphasis mine). IAR means 'ignore the rules when it benefits the encyclopedia.' While I generally only argue for use of IAR when it comes to article content, I also see a definite argument from utility when it comes to blatantly inappropriate content. Oh, wait, that's exactly what ArbCom said: "This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria." You have a problem, take it to DRV. Editwarring over the close of an MfD for something that has already been deleted appears to be preliminary steps in donning your Spiderman costume. → ROUX   ₪  01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)